Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

The missile launchers looks more Russian to me. As for those technicals (MG on pickups), they are probably retrofitted from the stuff found in rebel-run military bases and ammo-ed by captured ammunition trucks.

Either that or the CIA is selling them stuff through black-market channels.

fixed. The US has been known to discreetly buy Russian equipment through intermediaries to give to movements they support. Hell, the US even manufactures RPG-7s for that purpose. Well not strictly that purpose, but yeah.

fixed. The US has been known to discreetly buy Russian equipment through intermediaries to give to movements they support. Hell, the US even manufactures RPG-7s for that purpose. Well not strictly that purpose, but yeah.

mind you, this IS north africa we're talking about here.
I'm fairly sure that if you go to an avarage person's house and rummege around in their basment, you've got a 50% chance of finding an AK-47, and a 30% chance of finding an RPG-7 launcher.

fixed. The US has been known to discreetly buy Russian equipment through intermediaries to give to movements they support. Hell, the US even manufactures RPG-7s for that purpose. Well not strictly that purpose, but yeah.

I remember reading an article about the SOCOM operators finding Chinese made AKs and ammunition in Somalia. The Chinese diplomats, when presented with the evidence, are of course pissed - they didn't expect that their black market deals to be traced back to them.

Naturally speaking, I am not surprised if Gaddafi had made deals with Norinco for ammunition. Or even the rebels for that matter; I do know that there are some interest groups in the world who didn't care who buys their stock, a good deal is a good deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

This is Libya. Remember them? Enemy of the United States for the later half of the Cold War. Thus they were armed with Soviet made stuff since the 1970s and 1980s? Them, right?

Well it would be hard to clarify though - most ME countries, other than Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel, use and buy Russian weapons. Saudi and Pakistan usually use the German made G3 as standard issue, while Israel copies the AK-47 into the Galil so as to chamber for the 5.56x45mm rounds supplied by US during the Six-Day War, as well as the lighter CAR-15 when conversion kits was made available to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

mind you, this IS north africa we're talking about here.
I'm fairly sure that if you go to an avarage person's house and rummege around in their basment, you've got a 50% chance of finding an AK-47, and a 30% chance of finding an RPG-7 launcher.

You sound like you have done it before during your tour of duty.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

mind you, this IS north africa we're talking about here.
I'm fairly sure that if you go to an avarage person's house and rummege around in their basment, you've got a 50% chance of finding an AK-47, and a 30% chance of finding an RPG-7 launcher.

I see the Syrian thug and his family have "thrown out the government". Its almost funny to watch every autocrat in history go through the same moves of solving everything but the intrinsic problem that irritates everyone. ... Him, his family, his security forces, looting the wealth of the country.

Please *describe* news links are people will be uninclined to link to them.

1) Yes, another "buy American" bribe is not how to solve problems. This is just "Bush give-away to corporations" through the front door Obama-style. I didn't like the last one, I didn't like Bush's TARP -- I don't like giving tax cuts, tax waivers, or any favoritism to our immortal undying super-citizens. The GOP may be "corporatii thugs" but the DNC is "corporatii lite".

2) How is eliminating cars in cities in the EU a fail? Most EU cities are well on their way to pedestrian-friendly streets, towns, cities and enough public transit to cover it. This might happen organically over the same time period even without any mandate. I work my way around Portland and San Francisco without a car... and frankly, the last two times I've been to LA I have not rented a car -- used public transit and a bit of taxi. That's *Los Angeles*.

2) How is eliminating cars in cities in the EU a fail? Most EU cities are well on their way to pedestrian-friendly streets, towns, cities and enough public transit to cover it. This might happen organically over the same time period even without any mandate. I work my way around Portland and San Francisco without a car... and frankly, the last two times I've been to LA I have not rented a car -- used public transit and a bit of taxi. That's *Los Angeles*.

That should be obvious Vexx.
If the use of automobiles fizzles out in European cities organically/naturally over time through freedom of choice on the part of the people, that's one thing.
But to have government force you to take public transit (and allow government to have total jurisdiction over you) or walk, is a huge retrogressive move back to 19th Century transportation models.

This type of nanny-state crap is anathima to me.
I hold individual freedom in the highest regard, and banning private transportation, which is one of greatest forms of individual freedom, is diametrically opposed to my classical liberal sensibilities.

That should be obvious Vexx.
If the use of automobiles fizzles out in European cities organically/naturally over time through freedom of choice on the part of the people, that's one thing.
But to have government force you to take public transit (and allow government to have total jurisdiction over you) or walk, is a huge retrogressive move back to 19th Century transportation models.

This type of nanny-state crap is anathima to me.
I hold individual freedom in the highest regard, and banning private transportation, which is one of greatest forms of individual freedom, is diametrically opposed to my classical liberal sensibilities.

Correct me if i am wrong but aren't the legislators in the EU not directly elected by the people but appointed by various European governments.

Did you actually read the article. Its about diesel/petrol/gas engine cars. London has very strict rules regarding cars in the city center even today. So, I guess it is not too unlikely, that by 2050 (thats another 39 years) only battery powered (or similar - e.g. hydrogen fuel cell) cars and transportition systems are allowed in cities. The other question is, if cars as we know them today will still exist then... and if there are some stretches of Autobahn left that have no speed limits.

It's not that simple. The parliament does not have as much power as in your average democracy, much of the power lies in the hands of the Comission. For example it does not have right to initiate legislation.

That should be obvious Vexx.
If the use of automobiles fizzles out in European cities organically/naturally over time through freedom of choice on the part of the people, that's one thing.
But to have government force you to take public transit (and allow government to have total jurisdiction over you) or walk, is a huge retrogressive move back to 19th Century transportation models.

This type of nanny-state crap is anathima to me.
I hold individual freedom in the highest regard, and banning private transportation, which is one of greatest forms of individual freedom, is diametrically opposed to my classical liberal sensibilities.

Explain to me why you need a car to be 'free'? Whatever happened to simple bicycles, which are not only clean, but also good for your condition if you use them? Or heck, why not use your own two legs for once, something they'll make a lot easier for you to if they ban cars from residential areas? The city I live in isn't that big in comparison to London or Paris, but even here, pretty much all cars have been banned from the center district. Only delivery trucks and people on special business may enter by car, and even then they need to get some sort of permit.

Even if their reasoning for it (decreasing CO2 emissions to slow down, or even reverse Global Warming) is a farce, there are are other byproducts of combustion that completely warrant the ban of these 'dirty' cars. One particular street in my city used to be so bogged down by cars, you could see the soot on the window sills. if you washed your windows, you could do it again the next day because they would get so dirty from all the stuff in the emission fumes. Now imagine getting all that stuff in your lungs. You can't tell me that's not going to haunt you later in life if you're unfortunate enough to live there, or at least pass by there regularly.

The only way this can fail is if they don't make sure everyone has proper access to public transportation, which would eliminate the need of a car. But by 2050, I'd like to think that they have at least found a solution for that.

That should be obvious Vexx.
If the use of automobiles fizzles out in European cities organically/naturally over time through freedom of choice on the part of the people, that's one thing.
But to have government force you to take public transit (and allow government to have total jurisdiction over you) or walk, is a huge retrogressive move back to 19th Century transportation models.

This type of nanny-state crap is anathima to me.
I hold individual freedom in the highest regard, and banning private transportation, which is one of greatest forms of individual freedom, is diametrically opposed to my classical liberal sensibilities.

WTF.
You're talking about freaking public streets. They aren't goddamn private property, its the government's job to make sure they're used in orderly and efficient manner. And last time I checked European governments were pretty good about accommodating private transportation methods that didn't involve massive space footprints.

In America there is going to have be a balance due to the prolifieration of cars. What's more newer cities like Dallas and LA are already built to car scale so it'll be hard to retrofit them.

Still while I hold freedom in the highest regard as well, the whole car=freedom is a real stretch to me. A car is just a tool to get around, with good and bad parts. Any other romantic notions of it sounds way too 1950s PR movie to me.

Did you actually read the article. Its about diesel/petrol/gas engine cars. London has very strict rules regarding cars in the city center even today. So, I guess it is not too unlikely, that by 2050 (thats another 39 years) only battery powered (or similar - e.g. hydrogen fuel cell) cars and transportition systems are allowed in cities. The other question is, if cars as we know them today will still exist then... and if there are some stretches of Autobahn left that have no speed limits.

Yes I did read the article, and this is what jumped out at me:

Quote:

Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto "alternative" means of transport.

That is totalitarian bullshit IMHO, and it is not indicative of a free society.
When government forces the poplulation to do something that inhibits a right-- and freedom to travel is a right--then they no longer represent their polulation.
Unless of course the population has called for this, which the article doesn't indicate.

As Vexx pointed out, it must come of its own volition, and with the consent of the governed, not at the whim of some elite group of bureaucrats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of Fire

Explain to me why you need a car to be 'free'? Whatever happened to simple bicycles, which are not only clean, but also good for your condition if you use them? Or heck, why not use your own two legs for once, something they'll make a lot easier for you to if they ban cars from residential areas? The city I live in isn't that big in comparison to London or Paris, but even here, pretty much all cars have been banned from the center district. Only delivery trucks and people on special business may enter by car, and even then they need to get some sort of permit.

You don't know why a car is essential to being free?
I'll explain.
The freedom comes from having total control of the conveyance and being able to travel wherever you want, whenever you want, and as far as you want.
Public transit doesn't allow for that.
In addition, you have far more right against unlawful search and seizure in your personal automobile, then you do on a public vehicle.

The idea that a person doesn't have a right to a car is dangerous in my opinion.
Using the rationale you put forward, I could easily point out that you have no right to health care.
You could use herbal remedies, or just not get sick in the first place by eating only good foods, and excercising every day.
However, I don't see it that way.
We pay taxes for a reason.
The highways and byways are something we as citizens are all entitled to use.

You, like me, and everyone else, has THE RIGHT to travel on the public roads that our taxpayer money pays for in whatever form of tranport that is safe for such travel.
The idea that it is some kind of priviledge is ludicrous (not saying you said that BTW).
No government has the right to ban an idividual's private transport in a de facto manner.
The people must agree to this by voting for it.
Otherwise, they're nothing more than serfs and/or slaves to a dictatorial state.

While I do believe that AGW is not anywhere near as severe as we have been lead to believe, the pollution problem is very real.
However, the solution put forward by the EU to go to electric cars doesn't solve the problem of pollution.
It simply moves the problem to the power plants and will increase the need for more nuclear reactors.
If these people in the EU were actually serious about an environmental agenda to be met by 2050, then they'd be pouring the money not into public transit, but into the development of Hydrogen fuel--which actually IS CLEAN!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

WTF.
You're talking about freaking public streets. They aren't goddamn private property, its the government's job to make sure they're used in orderly and efficient manner. And last time I checked European governments were pretty good about accommodating private transportation methods that didn't involve massive space footprints.

Those public streets are payed for and thus owned by the citizenry.
Who the hell are these bureaucrats to tell their populations what kinds of cars they can drive?
Or whether they can have a car or not?
If the people of each city vote to ban the cars, then that is proper and just.
If a group of elitist politicians do it by government fiat, then it is tyrannical and that is my point.

Freedom means the government is the servant of its citizens, tyranny means the citizens are the servants of the government.

Cars are great for travel between cities, vacations, long distance, etc. Its unlikely those will ever be replaced in the US. But if you could just grab a rental car when you needed one at $20/day or so for those special trips, the need to own one becomes a hobby rather than a desperate necessity when other alternatives exist.

It should be noted that it is fossil-fuel burning cars that are the main concern.... not necessarily the concept of individual mobile transport.